Search players
Find a player by name, club or ticker
Hugo Yilmaz
Calderbrook · #18 · YIL1
Estimated market value
€9.42m
- Model range
- €6.27m – €12.6m
- Confidence
- 72%
- Season change
- −4.0%
Movement
- Last matchweek
- −1.5%
- Last 4 matchweeks
- −7.6%
- Season to date
- −4.0%
Reported in matchweeks, not days — football data arrives by fixture round.
Model estimate, uncalibrated. Values are model estimates on an uncalibrated scale. They are not predictions of a transfer fee and have not been validated against observed fees. Model 0.3.0-uncalibrated.
Valuation drivers
What moves this away from the €4.00m base value
- Performance+€2.71m
- Age+€1.66m
- League€0
- Position+€1.05m
- Availability€0
Not in this model
- ContractNo contract expiry data in the feed
- Market comparablesNo observed transfer fees in the feed
Availability
Read any valuation against this first
22 appearances, 21 starts, 2 matchweeks missed.
A player who is not on the pitch drifts down the index without his performance level falling with it, and availability is a direct discount on the valuation above. An unavailable player is not the same thing as a cheap one.
Scenarios
What the model would say under a different set of facts
- As measured€9.42mbenchmark
- Performance +10%€10.4m+€942k · +10.0%
- Performance +20%€11.3m+€1.88m · +20.0%
- Performance −10%€8.48m−€942k · −10.0%
- One year older€8.77m−€652k · −6.9%
- Fully availableNo availability discount left to recover—
- Moves to a stronger divisionAlready in the strongest division we rate—
These are counterfactuals, not forecasts. Each row is the same model run with one input changed — it says nothing about whether that change is likely. The benchmark is this player’s measured estimate of €9.42m.
Player DNA
Percentile against FWDs in the Demo Premier League
- Goal threat69
- Chance creation32
- Finishing47
- Defending29
- Availability95
Above average goal threat forward (69th percentile). Defending is the clear gap at the 29th percentile.
Generated from the metrics above, not from scouting notes. Ball progression and pressing are absent because the feed carries no progressive passes, carries or pressures.
Valuation history
The performance index the valuation is built on, by matchweek
Profile
Per-90 percentiles against FWDs
Percentiles as a table
| Metric | Hugo Yilmaz |
|---|---|
| Goals | 69th |
| Expected goals | 70th |
| Shots on target | 65th |
| Assists | 33rd |
| Expected assists | 37th |
| Key passes | 28th |
Per 90
Rate and percentile among FWDs with 270+ minutes
- Goals0.29
- Assists0.10
- Shots2.9
- Shots on target0.8
- Key passes1.2
- Expected goals0.28
- Expected assists0.11
- Tackles0.2
- Interceptions0.1
- Clearances0.2
Finishing
Goals against the quality of the chances they came from, running total
Scoring 0.21 goals more than his chances were worth. Finishing runs like this historically revert.
Comparable players
Closest percentile profiles among the same position
| Player | Similarity | Value | Age | Alike on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goran ArdalBrackenford | 90% | €59.4m | 20 | goals, shots on target |
| Tomas RasmussenEastmarsh | 89% | €32.4m | 21 | shots on target, shots |
| Omar ToureenKelsford | 84% | €39.8m | 26 | key passes, clearances |
| Zeki GrimaldiCalderbrook | 82% | €2.62m | 24 | shots, goals |
| Tomas NakamuraJarrowgate | 82% | €13.6m | 31 | shots on target, expected goals |
| Pedro LindqvistOakhurst | 82% | €2.53m | 18 | clearances, tackles |
Match log
22 appearances this season
| MW | Date | Opponent | Min | G | A | Sh | SoT | xG | xA | KP | Tkl | Int | Clr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | 16 Jan | at EastmarshW 2–1 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
| 22 | 9 Jan | at AshcombeD 2–2 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
| 20 | 26 Dec | v RookwoodD 1–1 | 90 | 1 | 0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.90 | 0.01 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 19 | 19 Dec | v PendleburyW 2–0 | 90 | 0 | 1 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.04 | 0.70 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 |
| 18 | 12 Dec | v NorthfleetW 1–0 | 61 | 0 | 0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 17 | 5 Dec | v LangmereD 1–1 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 16 | 28 Nov | v JarrowgateD 0–0 | 65 | 0 | 0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
| 15 | 21 Nov | v HollinwellL 0–1 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 14 | 14 Nov | v FallowfieldW 1–0 | 81 | 0 | 0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 13 | 7 Nov | v Deepdale ValeW 2–0 | 90 | 1 | 0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.91 | 0.04 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 12 | 31 Oct | v BrackenfordW 4–2 | 90 | 2 | 1 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 1.76 | 0.69 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 11 | 24 Oct | v StanmoorL 0–1 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10 | 17 Oct | v QuarrydaleL 0–1 | 82 | 0 | 0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 9 | 10 Oct | v OakhurstW 2–1 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 8 | 3 Oct | v Marsden CrossW 1–0 | 76 | 0 | 0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 7 | 26 Sept | v KelsfordD 0–0 | 68 | 0 | 0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 6 | 19 Sept | v Ilkeston ParkW 2–1 | 80 | 0 | 0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 5 | 12 Sept | v GranthorpeW 3–0 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
| 4 | 5 Sept | v EastmarshD 0–0 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 3 | 29 Aug | v AshcombeW 3–0 | 58 | 1 | 0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.88 | 0.05 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2 | 22 Aug | at ThornesideW 2–0 | 90 | 1 | 0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 0.91 | 0.08 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 1 | 15 Aug | at RookwoodL 0–1 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Data
- Last fixture
- 16 Jan
- Matchweeks covered
- 24
- Model
- 0.3.0-uncalibrated
Comparable transfers and contract situation are not shown, because the feed carries no transfer fees and no contract expiry dates. See methodology for what the model can and cannot see.